search_by_type

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the endpoint (GET /search/{objectType}.json) and a tier label 'readonly-owner', indicating read-only operation. However, it lacks details on side effects, rate limits, pagination, or required permissions beyond the tier label.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second provides the endpoint and access tier. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, endpoint, and access tier. However, it lacks details on the response format, result ordering, or how the 'limit' parameter affects results. This leaves some gaps for agent understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only objectType has a description). The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'q' is a free-text query for the search, partially compensating for the gap. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, leaving some parameters under-documented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it performs a free-text search scoped to one record type, with examples like 'job' and 'company'. It distinguishes from the generic 'search' sibling tool by explicitly mentioning the scoping to a single type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when searching a single record type, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling 'search' tool for multiple types. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.